auto whitelisting

Matt Kettler mkettler at
Wed Aug 23 17:32:19 IST 2006

Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 22/08/06, Matt Kettler <mkettler at> wrote:
>> Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd agree with Matt. I always recommend you turn the thing off as it
>> > tends to let spam through when you don't want it to..
>> Well, that's true.. but it can also cause spam to be tagged when it would
>> otherwise be missed.
>> Remember.. the AWL is NOT a whitelist..
> Exactly!
> I can say for a fact that the AWL has been keeping my false
> rejection/tagging rate well down, even after applying some things
> (ImageInfo mainly) to get a grip on the image based spam. Without the
> AWL, many a financial newsletter would have gone down the drain... As
> it is now, I cannot find one case where they've got tagged or removed.
> Haven't seen the wildly fluctuating "missfires" of the AWL that some
> report either.
> So I'll be keeping my AWL on, for that crucial score averaging I need.

You know, one thing I find highly amusing is that even though I personally
dislike the AWL, I wind up being a proponent of it to some folks. Which is
completely fine by me, but rather funny.

I guess that's what happens when you're more focused on giving folks the real
facts about the AWL than on telling them how bad it is.

It's hard to tell that I dislike the AWL if your read some of my wiki stuff on it:

I guess I just dislike misinformation a whole lot more than I dislike the AWL.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list